- Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.Some claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00707 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claim 5 is unpatentable over Gao-2 and over Gao-2 with Goubet; claims 1, 3, 4, and 6–8 were not shown unpatentable on any ground, and substitute claim 17 was denied.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose explicit constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 16–17; PO Resp. 5–6. Based on the complete record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 10
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“As an initial matter, the record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration for allegedly not reviewing the parties’ claim constructions. See Pet. Reply 2–3 (citing Ex. 1046, 115:15–18). Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited 11 This refers to the recitation in clauses 1F and 5F that the “diffusion assembly is disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber.” discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1; see also Pet. Reply 3 (arguing that “Dr. Micklow’s opinion that the prior art does not render the claims obvious is premised on an interpretation of certain claim limitations that are inconsistent with both parties’ constructions” (emphasis added)). Instead, we read Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also id. at 115:15–18 (“I don’t know if I would even apply claim construction. I applied engineering principles to a document that had been published with the patent office.”).” slip op. at 12
- BurdenNot shown unpatentable
“referring to the same direction as the separation of the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber” (vertically in both Figure 6 of the challenged patent and Figure 1 of Goubet), we turn back now to Petitioner’s discussion of clause 1F, which includes the limitation at issue. There, Petitioner does not discuss why the “diffusion assembly” is allegedly “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” but instead, Petitioner discusses why a component of the “diffusion assembly”—the “atomizer assembly”—is allegedly “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber”: Pet. 39. In the end, we need not assess whether the “atomizer assembly” identified by Petitioner is “disposed between” the “upper chamber” and “lower chamber” under the proper construction of that term (which, again, we need not and do not determine here) because the “disposed between” limitation does not involve the “atomizer assembly.” Instead, we find that, by failing to address why the identified “diffusion assembly” is “disposed between” the identified “upper chamber” and “lower chamber,” Petitioner has failed to provide persuasive evidence that Goubet discloses or suggests the “disposed between” limitation. Pet. 38–39 (discussing the claim language “said diffusion assembly is disposed between said upper chamber and said lower chamber” but only discussing the location of the “atomizer assembly”); see 35 U.S.C. § 316(e) (“In an inter partes review . . . , the petitioner shall have the burden of proving a proposition of unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.”). For the reasons above, we find, based on the complete record, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Goubet discloses or suggests the “disposed between” limitation.” slip op. at 22
Patent outcomesUS 10,092,918 mixedClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSRPatents in suitUS 10,092,918 - Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00706 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 4, and 7–10 are unpatentable as obvious over Goubet and anticipated by Gao; proposed substitute claims 20 and 21 are denied as indefinite and lacking written-description support.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, but Patent Owner “reserves the right to address [the definition] should new issues materialize.” PO Resp. 6. Patent Owner did not address this issue in the Sur-reply. As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Term construed petitioner constructionOther
“Network LLC, 929 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2019). At first glance, the language of the limitation at issue—which, again, recites “the compressed air and the operative fluid mix together in said mixing chamber to form the fluid dispersion”—would seem to require the “fluid dispersion” (under the stipulated construction) to be fully formed in the “mixing chamber.” In other words, the language of the limitation alone would seem to support Patent Owner’s proposed construction for the “form the fluid dispersion” limitation. But the claim construction analysis does not end with consideration of the claim language alone. Next, we turn to the Specification. The Federal Circuit has said that the specification “is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Here, the discussion in the Specification of precisely the same language as in the limitation at issue strongly supports that “to form a fluid dispersion” in the limitation at issue requires only initial mixing of the compressed air and operative fluid in the mixing chamber, with further “formation” of the ”fluid dispersion” occurring downstream of the mixing chamber: More importantly, the “predetermined amount” of compressed air and the “preselected amount” of the operable fluid are initially mixed together in the mixing chamber 226 to form a fluid dispersion. The diffusion chamber 112" is further structured to facilitate the formation of a plurality of substantially uniform droplets, as defined hereinabove, in the fluid dispersion prior to discharge from the diffusion chamber 112" through discharge port 132. Ex. 1001, 10:62–11:2 (emphasis added) (discussing Figure 6), quoted, in part, at Pet. Reply 6–710; see also Ex. 1001, 5:64–6:4 (same language, except without double primes, in a discussion of Figures 1 and 2). To be sure, certain passages in the Specification could be read to indicate that a “fluid dispersion” must be fully formed in the “mixing chamber.” See, e.g., Ex. 1001, 6:11–12 (“More in particular, the suppression chamber 232 receives the fluid dispersion from the mixing chamber 226.”); see also id. at 7:22–33, 11:39–52 (both implying that a “fluid dispersion” is formed in the mixing chamber). But the passage block quoted directly above (and the similar one bridging columns 5 and 6) more directly addresses the issue at hand—i.e., the scope of “form the fluid dispersion”—by using the same” slip op. at 13
- Expert testimonyPatent owner expert discountedMixed
“As an initial matter, the record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration for allegedly not reviewing the parties’ claim constructions. See Pet. Reply 2 (citing Ex. 1046, 115:15–18). Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1. Instead, we read Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also id. at 115:15–18 (“I don’t know if I would even apply claim construction. I applied engineering principles to a document that had been published with the patent office.”).” slip op. at 18
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successNot shown unpatentableMotivation not foundNot shown unpatentable
“To satisfy its burden of proving obviousness, a petitioner cannot employ mere conclusory statements. The petitioner must instead articulate specific reasoning, based on evidence of record, to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Magnum Oil Tools Int’l, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TriVascular, Inc. v. Samuels, 812 F.3d 1056, 1066 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Although the KSR test is flexible, the Board ‘must still be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references . . . without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention.’”) (citation omitted). Based on the complete record, we agree with Patent Owner that “Petitioner’s asserted motivation boils down to the conclusory statement that given Goubet and Kaiser, ‘it was well known in the field at the time of the invention that droplets of greater uniformity result in uniform droplet evaporation.’” PO Resp. 31 (quoting Pet. 59). We agree with Patent Owner that Petitioner’s discussion of the alleged reasons to combine (Pet. 59) is insufficient to support the proposed combination here. See Magnum Oil, 829 F.3d at 1380. Specifically, we are not persuaded that Kaiser’s teachings—which relate to combustion (Ex. 1014 at 43)—would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to the proposed modifications, which would allegedly “improve the smoothness (i.e., less harsh) of the aroma generated as the oil droplets evaporate in the surrounding airspace.” See Pet. 59 (emphasis added); White Pet. Decl. ¶ 251 (same); see PO Resp. 32 (“Rather, Dr. White merely describes the ability to achieve the effect as in the claimed patent, not why a [person of ordinary skill in the art] would look to the field of electrospray injection and combustion in mesoscale power-generation systems, using high-voltage electric fields to generate charged fuel droplets for controlled combustion in catalytic micro-combustors when considering atomization for scents.”). For these reasons, we determine, in light of the complete record, that Petitioner has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have had reason to combine Goubet and Kaiser, as proposed. slip op. at 32
Patent outcomesUS 10,583,449 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 10,583,449 - Aroma360, LLC v. Air Esscentials, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Oct 6, 2026 · IPR2025-00705 · APJ Eric C Jeschke · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 7–9 and 11 are unpatentable as obvious over Goubet; proposed substitute claim 21 is denied as indefinite.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“In the Response, Patent Owner states that it “does not dispute” the definition of one of ordinary skill in the art proposed by Petitioner, but Patent Owner “reserves the right to address [the definition] should new issues materialize.” PO Resp. 5. Patent Owner did not address this issue in the Sur-reply. As noted in the Decision on Institution, Petitioner’s proposed definition appears generally consistent with the record, including the prior art. See Dec. Inst. 8 (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57 F.3d at 1579). We remove the phrase “at least” in both listed options, however, as that phrase adds ambiguity. Further, Patent Owner has not argued at trial that Petitioner’s proposal for the level of ordinary skill leads to an improper understanding of how a skilled artisan would have understood either the challenged patent or the prior art. In the analysis below, we continue to apply the level of ordinary skill in the art adopted in the Decision on Institution, as proposed by Petitioner.” slip op. at 9
- Expert testimonyPetitioner expert creditedDecided for patent owner
“The record here does not support any sound basis to disregard the entirety of Dr. Micklow’s Declaration, as asserted in Petitioner’s overall argument. See Pet. Reply 1–2. Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, in the cited general discussion, Dr. Micklow does not indicate that he applied an incorrect understanding of a claim term. Cf. Cordis Corp. v. Bos. Sci. Corp., 658 F.3d 1347, 1357–58 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (disregarding testimony “based on an incorrect understanding of the claim construction”), cited at Pet. Reply 1; see also Pet. Reply 2 (arguing that “Dr. Micklow’s declaration is premised on understandings of claim scope that are inconsistent with the constructions advanced by both of the parties” (emphasis added)). Instead, we read the cited portions of Dr. Micklow’s testimony as clarifying that he was not involved in claim construction at all and that, as stated, he “made [his] opinions based on what [he] read in the patents.” Ex. 1046, 112:11–12; see also Pet. Reply 1 (citing Ex. 1046, 112:4–12, 113:13–20, 115:15–18). Next, we turn to each of the four specific claim terms that Petitioner highlights in its further arguments.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction needed
“B. Claim Construction In inter partes reviews, the Board interprets claim language using the same claim construction standard that would be used in a civil action under 35 U.S.C. § 282(b), as described in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Under that standard, we generally give claim terms their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the language of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313–14. Although extrinsic evidence, when available, may also be useful when construing claim terms under this standard, extrinsic evidence should be considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1317–19. Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner propose explicit constructions for any claim terms. Pet. 10–11; PO Resp. 5. Based on the complete record, we need not construe explicitly any claim terms because doing so would not change the outcome of the analysis below. See Realtime Data, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).” slip op. at 9
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for patent owner
“Florida Litigation a Joint Claim Construction statement that included stipulated claim constructions and disputed claim constructions for terms in the challenged patent as well as the ’449 patent and the ’918 patent. See Ex. 1018, Exhibit A (Stipulated Claim Constructions), Exhibit B (Disputed Claim Constructions). The parties stipulated to the construction of the terms “fluid dispersion” and “baffle” as recited in the challenged claim. See id., Exhibit A.10 10 When staying the Florida Litigation, the District Court cancelled the scheduled claim construction hearing. See ECF No. 67 (April 8, 2025) (granting joint motion to stay); ECF No. 68 (April 8, 2025) (cancelling the The stipulated construction of “fluid dispersion” merely restates the express definition of “fluid dispersion” from the challenged patent (although the definition is not cited or discussed in the parties’ filing). Compare Ex. 1018, Exhibit A, with Ex. 1001, 3:8–20. Similarly, the stipulated construction of “baffle” essentially parrots one sentence in the challenged patent (again, not cited or discussed in the parties’ filing). Compare Ex. 1018, Exhibit A, with Ex. 1001, 7:57–59. To the extent necessary, we determine that the complete record supports the parties’ stipulated constructions of “fluid dispersion” and “baffle,” and we apply those constructions below.” slip op. at 10
Patent outcomesUS 9,527,094 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousness§ 112 disclosurecites Phillips · NautilusPatents in suitUS 9,527,094 - Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. v. Stratasys, Inc.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Sep 28, 2026 · IPR2025-00611 · APJ Christopher L Ogden · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are unpatentable under § 103 over the stated Douglas–Mark and Hamilton-based grounds.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The parties agree that experience could substitute for a degree, and vice versa. Pet. 3; PO Resp. 10. The parties’ proposed levels of ordinary skill are substantially similar. For this decision, as in the Institution Decision, we adopt Petitioner’s proposed level, which is supported by credible testimonial evidence and is consistent with the problems addressed in the ’774 patent. See Ex. 1001, 1:16–52. Our decision would be the same, however, if we were to adopt Patent Owner’s proposal.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)Other
“Neither Petitioner nor Patent Owner argues that we need to construe any claim terms explicitly. See Pet. 2–3; PO Resp. 10. However, the parties contest two material claim-construction issues which we address below. To the extent that the parties’ positions depend on interpreting other claim language in a particular way, we discuss the relevant claim language below in the context of the parties’ arguments regarding the prior art.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“We disagree with Patent Owner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that limitation 1.2 must be performed before limitations 1.3 or 1.4. See Ex. 1001, 35:21–24. See Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“Unless the steps of a method actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” (citing Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). The evidence suggests that a “target printer” is any printer that is ultimately selected for fabricating the object, and such a printer could send its configuration information either before or after that determination is made in limitation 1.2. This interpretation does not render the word “target” meaningless. At some point, a printer must be determined to be the target printer, which is the one intended to ultimately fabricate the three-dimensional object. But the target printer still exists, and is capable of being queried, before that determination is made. We find the examples in the ’774 patent pertinent to this question. The ’774 patent states that “the target printer may include more than one printer.” Ex. 1001, 18:66–67. In discussing the step of “query target printer for properties 306” (Fig. 3A), the ’774 patent states that “[i]n one aspect, numerous queries are sent to numerous printers, e.g., for use in selecting one or more of the printers as the target printer.” Id. at 19:8–10. Alternatively, “the query is sent to a printer that is not necessarily the target printer as described herein, e.g., when the query or information received from a response to the query is used for the selection of the target printer.” Id. at 19:11–14. Importantly, the second embodiment states that the queried printer “is not necessarily the target printer,” suggesting that the queried printer could be the target printer even before it is determined to be such. Id. at 19:11–12 (emphasis added). Based on the evidence of record, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the “target printer” can be determined after the query recited in limitation 1.3 or the reception of configuration information recited in limitation 1.4. Thus, the evidence does not impose an ordering between limitations 1.2 and 1.3 or between limitations 1.2 and 1.4. The evidence also does not support Patent Owner’s argument that the two reverse-order examples in the ’774 patent are unclaimed embodiments.” slip op. at 10
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree that Petitioner’s arguments are based on impermissible hindsight, because they are based on the disclosures in Douglas and Mark, and Petitioner has articulated a persuasive reason to combine those references without referring to the ’774 patent itself, as we discuss below. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (an obvious rationale is not improper hindsight if it “takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”).” slip op. at 29
Patent outcomesUS 11,886,774 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 11,886,774 - Tesla, Inc. v. Charge Fusion Technologies, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jul 13, 2026 · IPR2025-00153 · APJ Carl M Defranco · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1–30 are unpatentable as obvious under § 103 over the asserted combinations of prior art.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Tesla submits that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had at least a bachelor’s degree in electrical or mechanical engineering (or an equivalent field) and at least two years of work experience involving automotive systems, including electric vehicle power management. . . . Additional industry 1 US 2009/0313034 A1, pub. Dec. 17, 2009 (Ex. 1004, “Ferro”). 2 EP 1,920,968 A1, pub. May 14, 2008 (Ex. 1005, “Oyobe”). 3 US 7,124,691 B2, iss. Oct. 24, 2006 (Ex. 1006, “Donnelly”). 4 Steven E. Letendre, The V2G Concept: A New Model for Power? PUBLIC UTILITIES FORTNIGHTLY, Feb. 15, 2002, at 16 (Ex. 1007, “Letendre”). 5 US 5,654,621, iss. Aug. 5, 1997 (Ex. 1078, “Seelig”). 6 US 6,662,083 B1, iss. Sep. 16, 2003 (Ex. 1010, “Knockeart”). experience or technical training may offset less formal education, while advanced degrees or additional formal education may offset lesser levels of industry experience. Pet. 2 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 14–15). Charge Fusion “takes no position with respect to Petitioner’s proposed level of ordinary skill.” PO Resp. 17. For purposes of our analysis, we apply Tesla’s proposed level of ordinary skill, which we find to be consistent with the problems addressed in the ’987 patent and the prior art. B. Claim Interpretation” slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“1. “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider” In the Petition, Tesla proposes that we construe “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider,” as recited in every independent claim, to mean “a changing or otherwise fluctuating cost (or price) of electricity for purchase from an electric charge provider.” Pet. 4–5. Charge Fusion responds that Tesla improperly narrows the meaning of this claim limitation. PO Resp. 15 (arguing this claim term “is not just limited to ‘changing or otherwise fluctuating cost (or price)’ as alleged by the Petition” (emphasis added)). Although we consider Tesla’s proposed construction to identify an exemplary “dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider,” we see no need to limit the meaning of this limitation as proposed by Tesla. Indeed, Tesla agrees. See Pet. Reply. 7 (arguing only that this claim limitation “at least includes” such an example). And Charge Fusion does not contend otherwise. See PO Resp 15 (arguing only that this limitation “is not just limited to” cost fluctuations). As such, we see no need to further construe this claim limitation. 2. “determine . . . a charging schedule for the vehicle” Limitation 1[g] recites “determine, based at least on the one or more charging preferences and at least one current value of a dynamic attribute of an electric charge provider, a charging schedule for the vehicle.” Independent claim 8, 15, and 22 recite a materially identical limitation. Tesla submits that this limitation should not be construed as a means-plus- function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(6). See Pet. 5. Charge Fusion agrees that “nothing in the claim invokes [§] 112(6).” PO Resp. 16. As such, we discern no dispute regarding the meaning of this claim limitation.” slip op. at 8
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed board ownDecided for petitioner
“Initially, we note that, as claimed, there is no express restriction on the manner in which the “amount” or “charge” is specified or otherwise expressed. Indeed, the Specification uses both “desired charge percent level” and “desired charge range level” as alternative ways for a user to specify an “amount of charge.” Ex. 1001, 14:53–15:8 (emphases added). The Specification defines “desired charge range level” as meaning “a desired distance to travel.” Id. at 15:3–8. Elsewhere, the Specification describes that a user may specify the amount of charge as follows: “the user may indicate a desired charging level (and/or a desired charging level may be automatically calculated) based on a desired distance of travel.” Id. at 19:49–57 (emphasis added). More specifically, annotated Figure 7 of the ’987 patent, reproduced below, demonstrates how a user may select “amount of charge” in terms of a desired mileage range 720 or a percentage level 718. See Pet. Reply 2. As shown in red, annotated Figure 7 illustrates that a user selects “desired charge level 720” on “vehicle charge indicator 714” by moving a slider to a value specified in “miles” (e.g., 110 miles). The Specification, after discussing selecting a desired charge percent level 718, explains: The user may also or alternatively view and/or change the desired charge range level 720. An estimate of how far the vehicle can travel on a given charge amount (which may be a general average and/or may be computed based on a specific itinerary and/or past driving habits) can be determined, for example, and utilized to express the desired charge level in terms of distance capable of being traveled. In such a manner, for example, a user may determine a desired distance to travel (e.g., how far it is from home to work or vice versa) and may set the desired charge range level 720 to match the desired distance. Ex. 1001, 14:65–15:8. Thus, the Specification confirms that “amount of charge” may be expressed in terms of a desired mileage as well as a desired percentage level.” slip op. at 11
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of success › HindsightMotivation foundDecided for petitioner
“We disagree. Charge Fusion’s reliance on Wonderland is misplaced and does not support the proposition for which it is cited. In Wonderland, the district court denied the accused infringer’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity, in part, because genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether there was sufficient motivation to combine the prior art. Wonderland, 988 F. Supp. 2d at 511. As such, the district court’s Wonderland decision does not constitute a final ruling on the motivation to combine issue, and the Federal Circuit’s summary affirmance of the district court’s ruling neither addresses the issue nor reflects how the issue was resolved at trial. See Wonderland NurseryGoods Co. v. Thorley Indus., LLC, 644 F. App’x 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Moreover, contrary to Charge Fusion’s assertion, Tesla correctly notes that although Ferro refers to wireless charging, it provides no implementation details. Ex. 1004 ¶ 36; Ex. 2006, 54:8–55:9. Nonetheless, Ferro does describe manual options for initiating charging, and Tesla’s expert credibly testifies that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Oyobe’s vehicle sensor to allow a user to initiate Ferro’s charging methods more easily without having to leave the vehicle. See Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 146, 151, 152 (citing Ex. 1004 ¶ 109). Accordingly, we find that Tesla establishes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Oyobe’s use of a sensor to establish presence of a vehicle near a charging station into Ferro’s system.” slip op. at 17
Patent outcomesUS 11,631,987 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites PhillipsPatents in suitUS 11,631,987 - GD Energy Products, LLC v. Kerr Machine CompanyAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Jun 29, 2026 · PGR2025-00031 · APJ Ryan H Flax · PGR · Final written decision
Claims 1–14 are unpatentable as obvious under each of four asserted grounds: Kerr; Aplex and Stanton; Blume, Stanton, and Wilkinson; and the sale of the Kerr Pump.
RulingsFinal written decision- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“The person of ordinary skill in the art would have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in mechanical or petrochemical engineering, or a comparable engineering discipline, and a minimum of 3-5 years of work experience in the design and/or manufacturing of reciprocating pumps and valves, including fluid ends and/or comparable high pressure fluid components, for industrial applications, including for use in the oil and gas industry. See, e.g., EX1003, ¶32.” slip op. at 12
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“[W]e need only construe terms ‘that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’” Nidec Motor Corp. v. Zhongshan Broad Ocean Motor Co., 868 F.3d 1013, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). We decline to expressly construe any claim language. slip op. at 12
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundDecided for petitioner
“Regarding the combining of Aplex and Stanton, Petitioner asserts that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that providing a packing/stuffing arrangement, as taught by Stanton, within a fluid end housing, as taught by Aplex, would improve pressure and fluid isolation compared with an arrangement where the packing was bolted to the outside of the fluid end as in Aplex unmodified. Pet. 66 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 189, 236). Patent Owner does not dispute this rationale. We find this to be a reason, with rationale underpinning, why the person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references with a reasonable expectation of success.” slip op. at 29
- Adverse judgmentOther
“The record indicates that Patent Owner has statutorily disclaimed claim 15 as of April 28, 2025. Ex. 2206.” slip op. at 8
Patent outcomesUS 12,152,582 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 12,152,582 - Google LLC / Motorola Mobility LLC v. Multifold International Incorporated Pte. Ltd.All claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 22, 2026 · IPR2025-00060 · APJ Arthur M Peslak · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 12–16, and 20 are unpatentable: claims 1, 2, 12, 13, and 20 as anticipated by Ogawa, and claims 4–9 and 14–16 as obvious over the stated combinations.
RulingsFinal written decision- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITAPlain and ordinary meaningDecided for petitioner
“Claim 1 also recites “wherein the first and second states comprise an open application state.” Given the usage of “comprise” in this clause, we determine that the possible first and second states must include an open application state but the states are not limited to an open application state. Claim 12 similarly recites a processor that is operable to “displaying an icon associated with the application in at least one of the first display and the second display, wherein the icon indicates that the application is in one of two or more states associated with a display status of the application” and “wherein the first and second states comprise an open application state.” Ex. 1001, 16:12–19. Given the usage of “comprise” in these clauses, we determine that the first and second states must include an open application state but are not limited to an open application state that is being displayed in the corresponding display status as argued by Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s proposed construction, which requires the application to be “open and being displayed in the corresponding display condition/status,” further narrows the wherein clauses of claims 1 and 12 which do not require the application to be open and displayed. In fact, Patent Owner’s declarant, Dr. Surati, testified that the applications have multiple states and are not limited to open application states. Ex. 1016, 50:4–51:4. Patent Owner does not cite to an any portion of the Specification or prosecution history in support of its construction. PO Resp. 7–9.” slip op. at 13
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“would have had an undergraduate degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science or a related field along with two years of work experience in the field of user interface technologies, including e.g., graphical interface technologies, or a related field. . . . More education can supplement practical experience and vice versa. Pet. 5–6 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 20–21). Patent Owner applies Petitioner’s definition of a person of ordinary skill in the art. PO Resp. 10. We apply Petitioner’s uncontested definition because it appears consistent with the problems addressed in the ’080 patent and the prior art.” slip op. at 10
- Novelty / Anticipation (§102) › Anticipation standard (single reference, every element)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“For the following reasons, we find that Petitioner establishes that Ogawa discloses this limitation. Patent Owner’s contentions are not responsive to Petitioner’s mapping of Ogawa to claim limitation [1.f]. This claim limitation recites that “the morphing comprising changing the shape and size of the icon.” Ex. 1001, 15:4–7. Petitioner relies on the size and shape of access bar 42 changing as shown by a comparison of Ogawa’s Figure 4(B) and Figure 4(C). Pet. 24– 25. Patent Owner does not dispute that the size and shape of access bar 42 changes from Figure 4(B) to Figure 4(C). See PO Resp. 10–16. Patent Owner focuses on the color of access bar 42 shown as cross- hatching in Figure 4 to argue that the icon does not represent the state of the application. PO Resp. 12–14. However, the color of access bar 42 and the size and shape of access bar 42 are set independently of each other by different functions. Ogawa explains that: [t]he splitting position of the screen is indicated by a pointer 44. When the pointer 44 is designated with the pen 12 and the pen is moved left or right (along the access bar 42), the splitting ratio (horizontal size ratio) of the two screens 13A, 13B changes as depicted in FIG. 4(C). Ex. 1005 ¶ 19.” slip op. at 29
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successMotivation foundReasonable expectation foundUnpatentable
“Petitioner next contends that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify “Ogawa’s display control method using Yook’s technique such that Ogawa’s method would have included first displaying a program across both logically divided displays of display input surface 13 . . . to increase the viewing area for the program as shown and described [in] Yook’s figures 4b and 4d.” Pet. 54–55 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 137). Petitioner further contends that the modification would “include[] minimizing the program to occupy only one of the first and second parts of display input surface 13 . . . as also shown and described with reference to Yook’s figures 4b and 4d.” Id. at 55. Petitioner then provides an example of the modification. Id. Namely, Ogawa’s operation would have been modified so that “when a user elects to split a screen in figure 4(A) using the split screen menu 41, the program is first displayed like in figure 4(C) . . . across two displays and then, based on user input to minimize the program size” resulting in the program displayed on one display. Id. (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 137; Ex. 1005, Figs. 4(A)–4(C)). Petitioner next contends that the modification of Ogawa with Yook “would have involved the substitution of one known way of displaying a program” as shown in Ogawa “with another known display method” as shown in Yook, “and thus would yield a predictable result.” Pet. 56–57 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 139). Patent Owner does not address claim 4. See PO Resp. 10–18. We have reviewed Petitioner’s evidence and argument and find that Petitioner has shown that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ogawa and Yook as a simple substitution of one known way of displaying a program for another with a predictable result. Ex. 1002 ¶ 139. Further, Petitioner has also shown that the combination of Ogawa and Yook teaches the limitations of claim 4. For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner establishes by a preponderance” slip op. at 43
Patent outcomesUS 8,842,080 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 8,842,080 - Apple Inc. / Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Apr 22, 2026 · IPR2022-01002 · APJ Jameson Lee · IPR · Remand
On remand, claims 1–9 and 12–20 are unpatentable as obvious over Paulraj and Heath under § 103.
RulingsRemand decision- RemandOther
“determining no challenged claim had been proved unpatentable by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (collectively, “Petitioner”). Paper 41. Petitioner appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Papers 43, 44. On January 13, 2026, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded, on the basis that the Board erred by not considering certain alternative arguments presented in the Petitioner’s Reply (Paper 29), which were properly responsive to claim construction proposed in the Patent Owner Response and adopted by the Board.1 Paper 45. In its Reply, Petitioner alternatively argued that even under the Patent Owner’s claim construction relating to “the plurality of antennas,” the same prior art references nonetheless still rendered obvious the challenged claims. In this remand proceeding, neither party requested the filing of additional briefing, despite having been given an opportunity to make and explain such a request. Paper 51. We have authority to conduct this inter partes review under 35 U.S.C. § 6. This Final Written Decision on Remand is issued pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 42.73. Having considered all of the arguments presented in Petitioner’s Reply, we determine that Petitioner has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–9 and 12–20 of U.S. Patent No. 9,191,083 B1 (Ex. 1001, “the ’083 patent”) are unpatentable. A.” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level board ownDecided for petitioner
“Bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and at least two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems, or the equivalent.” Pet. 2–3 (citing Ex. 1003 ¶¶ 27–28). Petitioner additionally states that “[a]dditional graduate education could substitute for professional experience, or significant experience in the field could substitute for formal education.” Pet. 3. Patent Owner does not in its Response address the level of ordinary skill. Patent Owner’s expert witness, Dr. Cooklev, testifies that he “will apply the same definition of the level of skill of a POSITA [as Petitioner].” Ex. 2004 ¶ 19. Based on the evidence of record, we determine a person of ordinary skill would have had a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering, computer engineering, computer science, or a related field, and two years of experience related to the design or development of wireless communication systems. This is consistent with Petitioner’s articulation of the level of ordinary skill, with the exception of Petitioner’s open-ended reference to “at least” two years of experience, because that would improperly encompass a level of experience only possessed by an expert. This articulation of the level of ordinary skill is also the same as what we determined in the Final Written decision issued on November 30, 2023. Paper 41, 6. C. slip op. at 6
- Claim Construction › Intrinsic evidence (Phillips canons) › Plain and ordinary meaning to a POSITATerm construed patent owner constructionDecided for patent owner
“Patent Owner contends: “The plain meaning of the claims requires that the same ‘plurality of antennas’ be used for transmitting and receiving the plurality of signal streams.” PO Resp. 5, 9–12. Citing Dr. Cooklev’s testimony, Patent Owner contends that the ’083 patent’s Specification describes embodiments that use the same antennas for both transmitting and receiving data streams. PO Resp. 7–9 (citing Ex. 2004 ¶¶ 34–35). In the Final Written Decision, we determined: Although we do not understand the claims to require both transmission and reception “via all antennas” all of the time, we determine the claims require a set of antennas in which at least some of the antennas are for both transmitting and receiving. We disagree with Petitioner that two separate sets of antennas— one set of transmitting antennas and a separate, nonoverlapping set of receiving antennas—fall within the scope of the challenged claims. Paper 41, 13 (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit agreed with our claim construction. Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC, U.S. Ct. App. Fed. Cir., slip op. 24-1419 (January 13, 2026) (2026 WL 91021) (Paper 45, 2–4). We continue to apply the same construction here that we adopted in the Final Written Decision.” slip op. at 9
- Obviousness (§103) › Graham factors (scope of art, differences, level of skill)UnpatentableUnpatentable
“legally sufficient motivation for modifying Paulraj, but only attempted to show that the modification “could” have been made by one of ordinary skill in the art which is not enough for a showing of obviousness. Sur-reply 8–9. We disagree with Patent Owner. Establishing that certain technique was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the challenged patent constitutes sufficient motivation to make a modification in accordance with what was well-known in the art to one of ordinary skill, absent factors not present here. Indeed, “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. That would be the situation where a technique was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, unless there is actual difficulty in making the application. The “improvement” here, although not articulated by Petitioner, is inherent with the technique, not requiring use of separate antennas for transmitting and receiving, i.e., eliminating the need for additional parts. Further, it is not necessary to show that a modification is the “best option,” because any “suitable option” would suffice. See Intel Corporation v. Qualcomm Incorporated, 21 F.4th 784, 800 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Here, Patent Owner does not assert that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had difficulty modifying Paulraj to use some of the same antennas both for transmitting and for receiving. Nor does Patent Owner dispute that it was well known to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same antenna(s) for both transmitting and for receiving. We further note the following description in the Specification of the ’083 patent: “The typical CT/MD [cellular telephone/mobile device] has one transmitter and one receiver (T/R), with one antenna.” Ex. 1001, 1:47–48. That statement is fully consistent with Petitioner’s assertion that it was well-known to use the same antenna for transmitting and for receiving. For the foregoing reasons, notwithstanding Patent Owner’s arguments to the contrary, we determine that Petitioner sufficiently has shown that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Paulraj such that some of the same antennas would be used both for transmitting and for receiving, according to limitations 1[b], 1[d], and 1[e].” slip op. at 36
Patent outcomesUS 9,191,083 unpatentableClaim construction§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 9,191,083 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2025-00954 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
Claims 3 and 8–19 are unpatentable: claim 3 is anticipated by Yu and obvious over Okashita, Okashita and Yu, and Burgener and Okashita; claims 8–19 are obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“ORDER For the foregoing reasons, ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Unopposed Motion to Amend (Paper 19) is granted, and claims 1, 2, and 4–7 are canceled;” slip op. at 37
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Analogous artAnalogous artDecided for petitioner
“We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,745,886 - Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. / Samsung Electronics America, Inc. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLCAll claims unpatentablePTAB · Mar 16, 2026 · IPR2024-01402 · APJ Gregg I Anderson · IPR · Final written decision
The Board held claims 3 and 8–19 unpatentable: claim 3 was anticipated by Yu and obvious on the stated grounds, and claims 3 and 8–19 were obvious over Burgener and Okashita, with or without Yu.
RulingsFinal written decision- PTAB / AIA Trials › Motions to amend / substitute claimsMotion to amend, grantedGranted
“Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1, “Pet.”) requesting an inter partes review of claims 1–19 of U.S. Patent No. 7,745,886 B2 (Ex. 1001, “the ’886 patent”). Petitioner filed a Declaration of Dr. Scott E. Thompson, Ph.D., in support of the Petition. Ex. 1002 (“Thompson Dec.”). Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC (“Patent Owner”) filed a Preliminary Response. Paper 7 (“Prelim. Resp.”). On April 4, 2025, we instituted this inter partes review as to the Challenged Claims and all grounds presented in the Petition. Paper 9 (“Inst. Dec.”). Following institution, Patent Owner filed a Response to the Petition (“PO Resp.”) limited to the patentability of the challenged claims. Paper 18. In support of the Patent Owner’s Response, Patent Owner filed a Declaration of John Berg. Ex. 2006. Patent Owner also filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend, cancelling claims 1, 2, and 4–7. Paper 19 (“Mot.”). We grant the motion. This proceeding is therefore limited to the patentability of claims 3 and 8–19 (“challenged claims”).” slip op. at 2
- Skill levelSkill level petitioner adoptedDecided for petitioner
“Patent Owner proposes a slightly different level of ordinary skill, arguing that a bachelor’s degree, not a master’s degree, is all that is required because that is the “target audience for the ’886 Patent.” PO Resp. 11. Patent Owner does not otherwise dispute Petitioner’s proposed level of skill. Id. We used Petitioner’s proposed definition in the Institution Decision. Inst. Dec. 13. Neither party argues any issue as dependent on the level of ordinary skill or the differences between the proposals. Accordingly, the issues here are not dependent on the level of ordinary skill and the result is the same regardless of which definition is adopted. On this record, there is no reason to change from Petitioner’s definition used in the Institution Decision.” slip op. at 7
- Claim Construction › Threshold & procedure › Whether a term needs construction (O2 Micro)No construction neededOther
“transistors” as a term that might require construction during trial. Inst. Dec. 17–18. At the hearing, the Petitioner argued that “cascaded transistors” means “[ar]ranged in a series of or in succession of stages so that each stage derives from or acts upon the product of the preceding [transistor]” and that there is no dispute that the limitation is taught by the prior art. Tr. 9:15–22. Patent Owner takes no position as to whether or not the prior art discloses “cascaded transistors.” Id. at 33:13–21 (“For the remainder of this proceeding, post institution, we have not taken any position regarding the scope of the cascaded transistors or the disclosure of the cascaded transistors in any of the prior art. We have not disputed that.”). Because Patent Owner takes no position on the issue, there is no dispute that “cascaded transistors” are shown in the prior art, construction is not necessary. Realtime, LLC v. Iancu, 912 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The Board is required to construe ‘only those terms . . . that are in controversy, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.’”) (quoting Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. original)). 2. “isolated island” Patent Owner disputes Petitioner’s contention that the prior art teaches or suggests claim 3’s recitation of “said plurality of cascaded transistors is situated within an isolated island.” Pet. 35–36; PO Resp. 16–17. Although the parties dispute whether an “isolated island” is shown in the prior art, neither party proposes a construction for the term “isolated island.” We agree that the arguments presented do not require construction of “isolated island.” The issues can be determined on the plain meaning of the term in view of the arguments made. See Section II.D below.” slip op. at 8
- Obviousness (§103) › Motivation to combine / reasonable expectation of successAnalogous artMotivation foundUnpatentable
“We find that Petitioner has sufficiently shown Yu is analogous art to Okashita. Both references are directed to the manufacture of semiconductors, which we find to be the field of endeavor. Ex. 1004, 1:47– 58; Ex. 1005, 1:16–26. More specifically, we agree with Petitioner and find that both references are in the same field of endeavor because they relate to SOI configuration. Pet. Reply 6 (citing Pet. 7–8, 39–40; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 77–80, 90–91). Because we find the references relied upon are in the same field of endeavor, we need not reach whether they are reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. We also find that Petitioner has shown rational underpinnings for combining Okashita and Yu. Pet. 43–44. That the references have differences is not the test. Rather, the test is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had motivation to combine them. We find there is sufficient motivation. Id. at 43 (citing Ex. 1005, 2:4–17; Ex. 1002 ¶¶ 177– 178). 3. Conclusion on Ground 3 Patent Owner does not argue any other reason that Ground 3 has not been sufficiently shown. Based on the full record, we determine that Okashita and Yu teach or suggest all the limitations of claim 3 and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the references in the manner asserted with a reasonable expectation of success. We thus determine that Petitioner has established by a preponderance of the evidence that claim 3 would have been obvious over the combination of Okashita and Yu.” slip op. at 21
Patent outcomesUS 7,745,886 unpatentableClaim construction§ 102 anticipation§ 103 obviousnesscites Phillips · KSR · GrahamPatents in suitUS 7,745,886
Holdings, summaries, rulings, issues, outcomes, winners and claim constructions shown for a decision were generated by a large language model reading the opinion. They are a guide to the decision, not the decision. Confirm every one against the court's own text before relying on it. Outcomes read from the patent owner’s side. Party names are extracted from the decision and are missing on about 900 short Director denials and scans, which carry the trial number instead.